From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Linda Dunbar
- We all understand the challenges of Full Automation. However, the
SDN and Full automation are two separate angles to Carrier networks. I
find the Section 4.1 Implications of full automation actually de-
From: sidr-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:sidr-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Randy Bush
how about
To relieve routers of the load of performing certificate validation,
cryptographic operations, etc., the RPKI-Router protocol, [RFC6810],
does not provide object-based security to the
From: Randy Bush [mailto:ra...@psg.com]
i don't even know what geographic redundancy is, alternate earths?
[WEG] nah, the latency is too high until we sort out IP over Quantum
Entanglement. ;-) Geographic redundancy in the context of things that live on
servers is that it exists on servers in
From: Randy Bush [mailto:ra...@psg.com]
are you really saying that i should be comfortable configuring a seattle
router to use a cache in tokyo even though both are in my network and
there is a pretty direct hop?
[WEG] not necessarily. But I'm also not saying that there would *never* be a
From: christopher.mor...@gmail.com [mailto:christopher.mor...@gmail.com]
[CLM]
In the RPKIcache example, 'consumer' is 'routers in your network'.
'Close' is 'close enough that bootstrapping isn't a problem', balanced
with 'gosh, maybe I don't want to put one on top of each router! plus
From: Randy Bush [mailto:ra...@psg.com]
i think the two paragraphs you would like to see improved are
[snip]
i am not against further explanation, send text. but short text. :)
[WEG] just the first paragraph really, and as I'll note below - I'd love to
send text, but I don't understand one of
I've reviewed multiple iterations of this draft, and I believe it is mostly
ready to go.
However, the concerns I raised during WGLC in
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg05010.html regarding the
ambiguity of some of the guidance regarding location of RPKI caches (close)
in
I've reviewed this draft, and have one substantive comment:
I think within the operational considerations (and possibly the info model),
you need some discussion of diagnostics and troubleshooting, both for on-box
and off-box implementations. How do I see that it's working properly, and how
do
Please disregard, these comments are intended for
draft-ietf-opsawg-large-flow-load-balancing-05. I replied to the wrong thread.
Sorry for the spam.
Thanks,
Wes
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
George, Wes
Sent: Monday
I've reviewed this document and have some comments.
First, an apology, because although I'm an active participant in the SIDR WG,
I'm pretty sure I missed the WGLC on this, so these comments shouldn't
necessarily be construed as me taking my argument to ietf@ietf because I felt
that SIDR
+Bruce Schneier (at least the email address published in his latest I-D), since
he should be at least aware of the discussion his callout has generated.
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Ted Lemon
On Sep 5, 2013, at 8:46 PM,
The IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) will hold a session
from 1500-1650 in
Potsdam 1 at the Berlin IETF on Sunday July 28, 2013. The purpose is to
provide an
overview of the IAOC to allow the community to better understand what
the IAOC does, how
the finances work, venue
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Melinda Shore
I agree
that this is probably not appropriate for publication as an RFC
but it would certainly be useful to find someplace for it in the
wiki. The chairs wiki might be an option but I think it's of
Since I was the one that provided some of this text and raised the issues it's
addressing, I'll take a crack at responding at a couple of your concerns below.
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
SM
'Upstream filtering of
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Spencer Dawkins
At least some of the nerdier nerds were probably thinking how could *I*
become a Martian? because that would be so cool! ...
[WEG] followed immediately by a complaint thread on this list asking why IAOC
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Mary Barnes
I have a general question for the community as to whether they find such
reports useful and whether we should encourage future nomcom chairs to
produce these? While this is not listed as a requirement in RFC
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Benoit Claise
Recently, for a single draft, I spent hoouuurrr trying to track all
the open issues from the directorates and the IESG, and chasing the
authors.
[WEG] While I realize that Benoit was originally speaking
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Scott Kitterman
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 10:42 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Internet Draft Final Submission Cut-Off Today
How does that relate to working groups that aren't meeting?
[WEG] Signal to noise
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of SM
In Section 5:
For cases of first time attendees for a specific location, relevant
information can be gathered from attendees that have previously
visited the city.
There are recurrent discussions as
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Dave Crocker
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 12:06 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Remote Participation Services
[WEG] changed subject line to reflect actual topic
If a meeting has good structure, management and
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
S Moonesamy
(b) replies to messages which use an odd quoting style [2].
2. http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/outlook-quotefix/
[WEG] The referenced program doesn't work for anything 2007 or later (aka
versions
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Melinda Shore
it's kind of weird that we cut off discussion so that we can proceed to the
next presentation. It's done all the time (I've done it, myself) and
while there's definitely a sense that we need to cover the
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Keith Moore
A different toolset, (e.g. pens and paper
and overhead cameras coupled to projectors), would likely produce better
results if that toolset did not encourage laziness in preparing
materials to facilitate
From: Keith Moore [mailto:mo...@network-heretics.com]
Years ago, my impression was that that Sunday training sessions were
pretty much ignored by anyone experienced in the organization. Is this
still the case?
[WEG] Depends on the subject matter. If they're all targeted at new attendees,
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Melinda Shore
I'm not very clear on what problem you're trying to solve, or why it's a
problem. I've seen some stuff around working group draft adoption that
I don't like very much but am not sure that I'd identify
From: barryle...@gmail.com [mailto:barryle...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Barry Leiba
There is no formal process that involves adopting anything. Working
group chairs appoint document editors (this is in RFC 2418, Section
6.3). There is nothing anywhere that specifies how the first version of
From: barryle...@gmail.com [mailto:barryle...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Barry Leiba
we have a
million things that are unspecified and should be unspecified and left
to management choice. Trying to find all of those and explicitly say so
will be a frustrating exercise, and one that won't have
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
John Leslie
I'm increasingly seeing a paradigm where the review happens
_before_ adoption as a WG draft. After adoption, there's a great lull
until the deadline for the next IETF week. There tend to be a few,
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Noel Chiappa
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 8:49 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org; l...@ietf.org
Cc: j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu; jcur...@arin.net; pwil...@apnic.net;
i...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [lisp] Last Call:
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Noel Chiappa
If a single permanent allocation that never changes is truly
necessary
Allocation != reservation. Nobody is asking for the entire chunk to be
_allocated_ (i.e. given out), just that it be _reserved_
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Brian E Carpenter
*please*please*please* study what happened to 6to4 and the
2002::/16 prefix before continuing this discussion.
The problem there was that the design of 6to4 assumed, and relied on,
altruistic
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Hector Santos
The IETF should be leading the charge for easy to use, multi-device
readiness cyberspacing virtual meeting places, including better
electronic groupware collaboration tools, etc. It is undoubtedly and
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Mikael Abrahamsson
Personally I believe there could be value in describing what the value
is to attend the meeting physically. I attended the last meeting in
Stockholm because it meant I only had to pay the entrence fee,
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
IETF Chair
=== Proposed Revised NOTE WELL Text ===
- You understand that meetings might be recorded, broadcast, and
publicly archived.
[WEG] I might suggest a small tweak (in brackets
From: Simon Perreault [mailto:simon.perrea...@viagenie.ca]
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 5:21 PM
Wes,
Here's my take on this...
CGN as defined in this document does not only include NAT444. It is more
generic than that: it really means multi-user NAT. Dave Thaler came up
with the example
I have a comment about this document related to some discussions that I've had
with a number of ADs and WG chairs around the formation and charter of Sunset4
to determine what is and is not in scope for that WG.
For a while both BEHAVE and Sunset4 had this document in their milestones,
which
: Thursday, March 29, 2012 5:44 PM
To: George, Wes
Cc: IETF Discussion
Subject: Fwd: IETF attendees reengineer their hotel's Wi-Fi network
Hi Wes,
Could we perhaps add a section to your draft
(draft-george-travel-faq-05.txt) on how to fix wifi network in the hotel
you are staying ?
Pointer
Which is why I'm wondering why it took us that long to punt him? Our rules
shouldn't treat people like this as a first-time poster if it's the same
nonsense that got them banned before, but from a new email address.
Mr. Fleming had stopped trolling lists for the last 6-9 months, but prior to
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henk
Uijterwaal
We have had cases where the opening reception was sponsored by somebody other
than the host for the meeting (if there was a host). The sponsor didn't get
much more than the possibility to put a sign near
Revision -04 has been posted which I believe addresses all of the comments
received thus far.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-george-travel-faq-04
Thanks,
Wes George
-Original Message-
From: ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-announce-boun...@ietf.org]
On Behalf Of The
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of SM
In Section 1:
more efficiently than waiting until someone sends an email to the
xxattend...@ietf.org list in the days leading up to the meeting.
The XX is ambiguous.
[WEG] Well, it was intended to be generic
I've been recommending this direction (that this is basically just more private
space, no magic) for some time, so I support the change.
However, I strongly believe that the document should formally update RFC1918,
not just 5735, especially now that it specifically says that in certain
From: Noel Chiappa [mailto:j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu]
Is that wise? I thought (IIRC, and maybe I'm spacing) the whole reason for
allocating this space was that 1918 space _couldn't_ easily be used for CGN
because there were too many conflicting usages.
[WEG] yes, but the general sense I got
2:25 PM
To: George, Wes
Cc: George, Wes
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-george-travel-faq-02.txt
A new version of I-D, draft-george-travel-faq-02.txt has been successfully
submitted by Wesley George and posted to the IETF repository.
Filename:draft-george-travel-faq
Revision
Happy New Year, it's time for our triannual hotel complaint thread.
I hate to do it, but I think that there are people who haven't looked at this
yet, and I'm hoping that we can perhaps rectify it before the majority of folks
try to book:
Instructions for making reservations at Hotel Concorde:
I support the work behind this document, but I do have a concern that gives me
pause regarding publishing it as an RFC in its current form.
I worry that it will serve as a disincentive for people to attempt IPv6-only
deployments. This is not because of the way that it's written, nor a
Based on the discussion on the 82 attendees list, I put together a draft that
provides a list of common questions (but not necessarily answers) that people
ask when preparing to travel to a meeting. As the draft states, this is an
attempt to provide a list of ideas for folks who can contribute
From: Dave CROCKER [mailto:d...@dcrocker.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 9:28 AM
To: George, Wes
Cc: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: Travel/Attendees list FAQ
However I suggest that the document cast itself as a snapshot of an on-
going
documentation process, with the master copy
On Dec 7, 2011, at 7:11 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
What is the value in publishing a living document as an RFC (which
inherently a static, archival document)? Wouldn't it make more sense
to convert the contents of this document to a Wiki page that we could
jointly edit and maintain
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Melinda Shore
I think it's great that Wes put together
a proposal and I hope that it's seen as a starting point for
a wiki or some such rather than as yet something else that
needs an editor and needs an approval
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Doug Barton
Thank you for confirming publicly that the issue here is not a
technical
one, but rather that the ISPs would prefer not to bear the costs of
dealing with the problem that they
On Dec 4, 2011 10:40 AM, Joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
10.170.127.192/27 link#12UCS 20 en3
10.170.127.193 4c:47:45:56:44:58 UHLWIi422 34 en3
1197
10.170.127.207 127.0.0.1 UHS 00 lo0
And
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Cameron
Byrne
The ietf did act. It is called ipv6.
[WEG] sarcasm thanks for that wonderfully relevant and technical rebuttal.
I'm so glad we've stopped debating philosophy and religion in this thread and
gotten down to
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Randy Bush
talk to free.fr, camron byrne, ... there are roadmaps.
but this proposal is not about migrating to ipv6. it is about ipv4
life extension and nat444 4ever. to hell with that.
[WEG] let's see... free.fr
Tl;dr version: I think that there is value in having IETF legal counsel
evaluate us against other SDOs specifically regarding considerations around
membership (or lack thereof), voting (or lack thereof), and openness (or lack
thereof).
That would help us to determine if this is really something
From: Andrew Allen [mailto:aal...@rim.com]
We can put all kinds of wonderful constraints on hotels if we want to -
[snip] - then we will likely never be able to meet anywhere.
[WEG] I am not suggesting that this be a deal-breaker constraint. We have quite
a number of nice to have items that
I'm also completely mystified as to why IPv6 support for all proposed/requested
features is not an explicitly stated requirement, even at this phase. It's not
always as simple as we'll make sure we make it IPv6 capable when we implement
it... with the sorts of solutions you're looking for here.
My last message caused something else to occur to me - there has been a lot of
discussion both here and at NANOG about hotels being woefully underprepared for
the internet (and address) use that their guests generate when a conference
full of geeks and their multiple devices per person descend
From: Joel jaeggli [mailto:joe...@bogus.com]
At least, we should start *trying* to get IPv6 service from hotels.
We may have a very hard time getting it, but the fact that customers
are starting to *ask* for it will help make hotels aware of IPv6.
I see no pointing in asking for
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org On Behalf Of Iljitsch van Beijnum
And who cares anyway? If people feel it's a good idea to use addresses in the
240/4 block, more power to them. That saves more usable addresses for other
uses.
WEG] The problem is that people really can't today, because vendors
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Keith
Moore
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 10:04 PM
To: Cameron Byrne
Cc: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-03.txt
(IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Transition Space) to
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Keith
Moore
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 10:04 PM
To: Cameron Byrne
Cc: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-03.txt
(IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Transition Space)
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.orgmailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org
[mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Keith Moore
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 10:04 PM
The problem is in the zillions of systems in the field that have assumptions
about 240/4 wired into them, most of which either have no
-Original Message-
From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.ar...@piuha.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 5:59 PM
To: George, Wes
Cc: ietf@ietf.org; draft-weil-shared-transition-space-requ...@tools.ietf.org;
draft-bdgks-arin-shared-transition-sp...@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 6:32 PM
To: George, Wes
Cc: Jari Arkko; ietf@ietf.org;
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-requ...@tools.ietf.org;
draft-bdgks-arin-shared-transition-sp...@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last
-Original Message-
From: Benson Schliesser [mailto:bschl...@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 1:21 AM
To: Jari Arkko
Cc: draft-bdgks-arin-shared-transition-sp...@tools.ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org;
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-requ...@tools.ietf.org; George, Wes
Subject: Re
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jari
Arkko
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 2:35 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org; draft-weil-shared-transition-space-requ...@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call:
67 matches
Mail list logo
